Today I posted a mostly well received question (currently at +12). I received several useful answers. I amended one with extra information and its poster received it well.

Another good answer (by a very high rep experienced user) recommended a package to solve the problem. Since I'm new to the area and the package was in source code form, I didn't know how to install it, and it took me a while to figure it out. Trying to be a good citizen of Stack Overflow, and wanting to spare this effort for others, I went back and amended the answer with the four lines of code that make it a full, self-contained solution recipe.

At this point the poster of the answer got upset that I modified his answer, reacted in a negative and hostile way, and removed the edit. I tried to explain why adding this information is useful for the community and added it again (in retrospect, I should not have made the edit the second time), but he reacted in an even more negative manner and removed it again.

I do not participate on Stack Overflow much any more, but I am quite active on another Stack Exchange site where the sort of edit I made is encouraged, and we generally prefer answers that are beginner-friendly and contain the full information needed for a solution.

Question: Is the culture of Stack Overflow different from smaller Stack Exchange sites in this regard and is it considered bad manners to make such edits to others' posts? What would have been the preferred course of action in this situation?

Consider that:

I did not edit the original text of the answer, only added to it

The additions were concise, relevant, and would have saved time for someone in the future.

Generally, the principle I follow on other Stack Exchange sites when editing questions and answers for the long term is: in what form should we put this QA so it's going to be of use to future visitors arriving from search engines? That usually means making the question clear, concise and reasonably general, and making the answer again clear, concise, and as complete as possible.

In the meantime my question received a number of downvotes which may or may not be related. I also asked for moderator assistance which resulted in the removal of comments, which is probably a good thing. But it also means that I can't gauge the general feeling of the community on the matter, which is why I am asking about it on meta.

Note: Please do not focus on the specific people involved and keep all comments polite and respectful. I do not want this meta post to result in any changes to the QA I'm asking about---I already received good answer. I'm simply looking for community feedback in case similar situations arise in the future.

I think he maybe got madder that you made an edit.. he deleted what you edited.. and then you rolled it back to your edit. Maybe would've of been a big deal if you just did it once?
–
DronehingeAug 5 '14 at 16:16

26

Your edit did not, "make it a full, self-contained solution recipe". You didn't mention how to install the various components required to build from source on various operating systems. Unless someone already knew how to do that for their OS, your edit wouldn't have helped... and if they knew how to do it, they probably wouldn't have needed your edit. So I can understand why the OP removed it (not to say the tone was warranted). If someone rolls back your edit 1 minute after you make it, you should probably take that as a hint that you shouldn't try again. ;)
–
Joshua UlrichAug 5 '14 at 16:43

39

It's never worth starting an edit war. Let someone else re-instate the edit (if they think it is important enough). Don't take it personally and don't feel that you have to fix the internet.
–
dmckeeAug 5 '14 at 18:12

29

I sympathise with the predicament outlined here, and I am suspicious that this high-rep user thought their posts were beyond improvement ("I did not flag as community wiki" in fact makes me pretty certain this is the case). I've seen exactly that behaviour before from another very high rep user. I am minded to think he or she doesn't know what "diatribe" means - you were polite.
–
halferAug 5 '14 at 19:37

@halfer The question was: "How do I do X?" The answer was: "Download this library to run the only function contained therein, which does exactly X." Presumably it gets up votes because the question got upvotes (for being interesting/unusual) and the answer highlighted a previously unknown package to achieve precisely what was requested.
–
ThomasAug 5 '14 at 20:09

22

I took another look at your edits. They were factually incorrect. devtools::github_install does not exist. The function is devtools::install_github. You might have had the best of intentions, but you don't seem to have the specific knowledge in this area to assert that your edit was useful information and that the answer was incomplete without it. See also my previous comment. I'd also like to note that the answer you accepted does not work on Windows.
–
Joshua UlrichAug 5 '14 at 21:55

5

One possible solution might have been to ask the poster to provide more information about how to install the package, but I doubt they would have obliged. I would, personally, consider the answer of low quality, been a link only answer, but I don't have complete context
–
MadProgrammerAug 5 '14 at 21:59

7

The devtools package is not required to install a package from source. Maybe the OP didn't want his answer to suggest install_github was the preferred or best method.
–
GSeeAug 5 '14 at 22:03

15

I completely agree with Dirk. I didn't see anything wrong with his initial response. Even when he became more agitated (after you insisted upon editing his answer twice), his "negative and hostile" reaction was both, A: warranted, and B: still pretty civil.
–
canonAug 6 '14 at 13:30

11

I've downvoted & voted to close: why? because that is a poor question. As I commented there, the question is overly broad and there a pile of ways to crash R - I have some crappy C code on my computer that will kill R for you, do you want me to post that as an answer? - hence the downvotes because it shows no research effort nor explains why you want to crash R. Others here have explained why the edit was wrong (factually) and not helpful (it doesn't work unless you have X or Y installed - should you include instructions on how to install that too?). I would have heeded Dirk's initial comment.
–
Gavin SimpsonAug 6 '14 at 15:31

5

Also, looking up my old posts and downvoting them randomly is just ridiculous, whoever is doing that.
–
SzabolcsAug 6 '14 at 17:10

10

@Szabolcs Re the honest mistake - I know, but see it from Dirk's point of view when you inject incorrect code into his answer that has his name attached to it. Change your impression of the whole debacle much?
–
Gavin SimpsonAug 6 '14 at 18:02

5

@halfer Talk about flogging a dead horse; Those instructions were not sufficient to install the package from source without other software being installed. There was a mistake, and Dirk didn't see the point in including the devtools instructions in his Answer. Dirk was perfectly civil in the first request to the OP to not edit the question. That should be enough; it is Dirk's Answer with his name attached. Useful edits that significantly enhance a Q or A are great. Tangential, buggy, irrelevant edits not so much. Please don't characterise Dirk as a "bad egg"; that is not called for.
–
Gavin SimpsonAug 8 '14 at 2:08

6

@Szabolcs The code wouldn't work without Rtools already installed on a Windows machine, so I am not ignoring that you tested the instructions. It appears you tested them on your system and they worked. You are ignoring the advice from several people that, on their own, those instructions are not sufficient to install the packages on all of the major OSes. The point is that in a question about ways to crash R, I don't expect answers to include generic instructions on installing R packages.
–
Gavin SimpsonAug 8 '14 at 2:23

9 Answers
9

I processed a few flags on that post earlier. There was nothing at all wrong with your original edit. It wasn't directly an answer to the question, but I thought it was helpful. The author of the post didn't think so, so he rolled back the edit. At that point you probably should have just let it go. It's his answer, so he should get the final say in what it contains. You could always post a link to the extra information as a comment, just so people have it.

Is the culture of StackOverflow different from smaller SE sites in this regard and is it considered bad manners to make such edits to others' posts?

Only a little bit. We do frown upon people changing code in questions or answers, as that fundamentally changes the post. Your edit didn't change code though, so it probably would have been accepted by just about anybody. It was just a particular user who didn't think it was helpful in this instance.

This. Also: don't get into edit wars. Make it once, if it's reverted and you strongly feel like it shouldn't have been reverted, flag it then but don't revert the reversion - or ask in comments why it was reverted, but either respect the answer or , again, flag. Edit wars are pointless wastes of everyone's time.
–
JoeAug 5 '14 at 21:17

5

Also, you can update your original question with any specifics for your own resolution.
–
ps2goatAug 6 '14 at 5:28

Generally, it is useful to provide some rationale for the edit in the edit summary, but this was missing.
–
JamesAug 6 '14 at 13:03

2

@Chris - In the end, they decide which edits are allowed or not on their own posts. Keep in mind that users have some moderation powers over their own content, including the deletion of it. They also suffer the consequences of material which was posted with their name on it. For example, the original edit contained a typo. This could result in many downvotes on an answer which would have otherwise been seen as correct, even if it wasn't seen as the best one there.
–
Travis JAug 6 '14 at 21:07

3

My main point is this: the user whose name sits next to the content is the one who is seen as responsible for it. If they aren't comfortable with that content, they should have every right to edit it.
–
Travis JAug 6 '14 at 21:07

5

@Chris - my name is attached to my posts (till they become wiki) - I don't want something that I would not put in the post to be under my name. Author of the answer suggested exactly that course of action in the first comment - the edit did not meet author's bar, so it should not be associated with author.
–
Alexei LevenkovAug 6 '14 at 21:10

1

@TravisJ But we can roll back an OP's edits, and we can vote to undelete the post. I've never seen it stated that I have the ultimate editorial oversight on my posted answers. If that's the case, then the edit queue seems presumptive -- we should be giving the OP a chance to review the edit before approval. There's a button to disassociate yourself from an answer; I assume it exists for the very reason that it may be edited in a direction that you aren't comfortable with. Imagine this precedence being used by a new user rolling back his unformatted garbage because "it is my post"
–
Chris BakerAug 6 '14 at 21:11

1

@Chris The CC-BY-SA license doesn't mandate any kind of edit policy for stackexchange. It permits you to publish an edited version on your website, as long as you provide attribution and make it clear that you changed it.
–
CodesInChaosAug 6 '14 at 21:19

3

Yeah, I retracted the comment. I still am surprised by this idea that we "own" our posts to the extent that I can come boss people off my answers and deny edits because "I don't like it." Seems contrary to the spirit of the site
–
Chris BakerAug 6 '14 at 21:20

9

@Chris Yes, you "own" your posts, in that they have your name on them. If other people want to take it in a different direction, they are licensed to copy your post and make whatever edits they want under their own name. We have the ability to collaboratively edit each other's posts because that usually (ideally) leads to better content. In the minority of cases though, if the original author doesn't like a change they can roll it back. Contributions are encouraged, but we can't force people to accept them.
–
Bill the LizardAug 6 '14 at 22:18

1

SO explicitly allows edits. His response, "Please do not edit my answer" is an indicator that you're dealing with someone who has issues. Let it go and don't make the second edit. You could edit your question to include the extra info, clearly indicating that it's an addition to your original post.
–
Don BransonAug 7 '14 at 1:26

3

@DonBranson Disagreeing with an edit does not necessarily mean he "has issues". Dirk explained pretty clearly why he disagreed with that edit.
–
canonAug 7 '14 at 18:09

5

@DonBranson I think he said that because he disagreed with that particular edit... not because he's opposed to edits in general.
–
canonAug 7 '14 at 18:25

@AlvinK. Answers are almost never obsolete. At best, they're obsolete for users who are able to upgrade to a newer version (maybe the majority of users), but a correct answer for an old version can still be valuable. See this question.
–
BrunoAug 8 '14 at 10:44

That reaction was quite extreme and uncalled for (given exclusively the facts that you state). If your edit was "clean" and did not destroy the post itself, there should have been no reason to react so strongly the first time, or to react at all. The most appropriate reaction would have been a comment to the effect of @Szabolcs Thanks for the edit.

I have noticed too that people are becoming protective of "their intellectual property", but that is not the consensus behind Stack Overflow. Personally I'm reverting edits to my posts which are wrong or do not improve it at all; but additional content I gladly accept.

As Dirk said, the additional information had nothing to do with the question. Why did Szabolcs not post either (1) a comment to Dirk's answer or (2) an "improved" answer to his own question? I think that's usually the recommended path. And it surely avoids any bad blood...
–
jwwAug 5 '14 at 19:55

6

I don't see any "extreme reaction" in comments... Even after OP re-applied the edit author of the answer replied relatively politely and in constructive manner.
–
Alexei LevenkovAug 6 '14 at 21:06

8

@AlexeiLevenkov ...and then threatened the OP with all sorts of punitive action he could take, used words like "nonsense" and "diatribe", and invoked private property rights in defending his answer on a collaboratively edited site.
–
Two-Bit AlchemistAug 6 '14 at 21:15

6

@Two-BitAlchemist I guess we have different way off measuring what is "polite" followup on ignoring "please don't do that" is.
–
Alexei LevenkovAug 6 '14 at 22:11

6

Exactly, the person who provided the answer was polite, even after the second edit, until the asker said that he was being unhelpful (when he had provided an answer). At this point a blowup is expected.
–
JackArbiterAug 7 '14 at 13:21

1

I'm not sure I agree with that this is the consensus behind SO. "Personally I'm reverting edits to my posts which are wrong or do not improve it at all; but additional content I gladly accept.": this only works because you're a regular user. Essentially, it means that you'll have to keep using SO almost indefinitely if you don't want your name as an author to be associated with content you disapprove of...
–
BrunoAug 7 '14 at 23:40

1

@Bruno That's kind of what you signed up for when you started using SO. It has always been designed as a part Wiki, where anyone can edit anything. The "attribution" is pretty clear, if someone edits your post, that's very visible to readers, and the edit history makes apparent what is yours and what isn't. It's not like you can be held liable for content that you didn't post.
–
decezeAug 8 '14 at 7:12

1

@deceze No, that's not what I signed up for. There are slightly conflicting mechanisms indeed, but edits have always been about fixing minor things (the role of an editor), not for co-authoring. (CW might have been more prominent when I signed up too.) The attribution can be misleading if someone edits someone else's post. It's only clear for people who are familiar with SO and who are willing to go through the edit history (which can be confusing). Someone citing it elsewhere (even with proper link to the author's profile) will never cite the whole edit history, that's just unrealistic.
–
BrunoAug 8 '14 at 10:39

2

@Two-BitAlchemist the mere ability to edit someone's post is not carte blanche to repeatedly jam a rejected, incorrect edit down their throat. If someone did that to one of my answers you can bet I'd be threatening/seeking recourse...
–
canonAug 8 '14 at 13:33

@Bruno I do feel that you have a very strong sense of "ownership" (from this and other posts by you here). Unfortunately that's not how SO was designed, it's that simple. You should probably let go of that idea a bit if you want to be a happy user of SO. Rolling back crap edits I have no problem with, wanting to protect and preserve ones writing as "ones own" is not the goal of SO.
–
decezeAug 8 '14 at 13:37

3

@deceze No, that's not how you perceive SO was designed. You claim there is a consensus that's visibly not there. Your posts have your name on it as an author, and that should be respected above all. Putting words in someone else's mouth goes beyond the CC license, it can become a grey area with falsification (in extreme cases). In addition, SO has always promoted individualistic behaviour: the reward system is clearly oriented towards individuals, and has virtually nothing for collaborative work (besides a few points for edits if you're below a certain rep). This is how SO was designed.
–
BrunoAug 8 '14 at 13:49

@deceze (A) What the help centre says now probably isn't quite the same as what it said when I signed up. (B) Putting words in someone else's mouth could be considered as forgery is often illegal and overrides whatever recommendations the help centre may or may not say. We can argue as to whether it's legal or not, but it's at the very least unethical, and should not be promoted by SE, not with this presentation format. (C) People who visit the site might not read that section of the help center, they'll see your name next to your answer, which can become misleading with edits.
–
BrunoAug 8 '14 at 14:01

2

@deceze Yes, collaborative editing was in from the start, but the role of an editor and that of an author are not the same. The SO creators did virtually nothing to enable co-authorship (besides the CW wiki). Sure, there's a fine line between the two, but since authors have their name more clearly visible on an answer, they are entitled to consider it they own, and to have the last word.
–
BrunoAug 8 '14 at 14:25

1

@deceze If you look at how the terms author and editor are defined in pretty much every area of publishing you'll see there's a gigantic difference between the two. Infusing a well defined term with completely different meaning only leads to confusion. And if we look at how the vast, vast majority of people on SO use the edit option it's clear that they consider themselves editors and not co-authors (easy challenge to prove that: Find 10 edits that would qualify for "co-authorship" and 50 that are more in the line of editing).
–
VooAug 8 '14 at 14:57

But... editing the answer twice was also rude, in my opinion. I say that because you had alternative options.

Edit your question and add the additional content as an update or solution summary.

Add additional info in a comment to the answer, let the OP choose to incorporate it.

Or, dare say, another answer to the question, citing or linking to the other answer you found helpful. Community will usually upvote helpful supplementary answers even if they do appear to be rep-wh*ring.

Regardless, I'd say one edit is clearly enough. If an author objects to your edit, leave it alone.

I'm not a SO rules lawyer, I'm just stating my opinion as a portion of the community. My objective reason is:

Unless Stack Overflow removes the concept of reputation voting, treating other authors' answers as my personal wiki just doesn't feel right. I draw the line at adding content because, no matter what, that is still a subjective activity and I appreciate the author's right to represent himself. I appreciate it when someone improves my answer format and appearance, or adds to it in a comment (which I will then incorporate in my own edit), it often shows respect and appreciation for my answer.

I do not care for having content added to my answer, though frankly that has never happened (though just because I don't care for something, I'm not entitled to be rude or go against policy of the site). But if this became commonplace, I would expect the site to change the voting system such that reputation from voting would apply to all parties involved in an answer, not just the original author. Since that currently isn't how it works, I think it is best to respect the spirit of the answer while editing the letter of the answer.

NOTE: I'm not for or against the reputation system, just noting that we can't have it both ways. This isn't Wikipedia (yet).

I'm trying to parse the meaning of "not orthogonal". I wonder if you meant "orthogonal" there, in the sense of "at right-angles to", since the word on its own, in this context, means "opposed to" or "substantially different". It's too late for me to get me brain around double negatives ;-).
–
halferAug 5 '14 at 21:17

2

I think that a 5k+ user using "oh no my rep will suffer" as an argument at all is perhaps too close to crossing an invisible line. If you can't take some rep loss with good grace, you're too serious about it. If I've ever done anything contrary to this advice, I hereby affirm that I now know better :)
–
Kuba OberAug 5 '14 at 21:27

1

@Kuba, agreed. Furthermore users of this experience level should be setting an example to the rest of the community, and that has not happened here.
–
halferAug 5 '14 at 21:29

1

@halfer - Yeh I think I was trying to wedge the term in to communicate the idea, but it doesn't quite fit. I was using the term in context of programming where we say that features are orthogonal, and can be combined in a small, predictable combination. Maybe a better term would be simply "compatible". Sorry for that, I'll figure out how to reword it and edit it. :)
–
mrjoltcolaAug 6 '14 at 1:00

@codenheim: just as an interesting aside, I think your understanding of orthogonal isn't correct. The basic context is "at great variance with", since things at right angles could not be at a greater difference of rotational position. Whilst language is still useful if there is common (mis)agreement on meaning, if "features are orthogonal", to me it signifies that these features would not work well together. If you have a reference for the opposite meaning, I'd be interested to see it.
–
halferAug 7 '14 at 22:39

@halfer - In Programming context I assumed it meant something different than the geometry context. I understand orthogonality in the context you are referring, I had 5 years of Engineering school, which included drafting class :), but what I indeed may have misunderstood is its correct meaning in computer terms, I admit I never quite understood the hijacking of the term. Read here then let me know your thoughts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(programming) as opposed to the other, more common meaning of orthogonal, here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality
–
mrjoltcolaAug 7 '14 at 23:40

1

@halfer - But you know, I think you are right. The other context that I point to discussed "changing factor A does not change factor B" which is indeed perpendicular. Don't I feel dumb now. I have always misunderstood the term in context of computer language design to mean "compatible features" as in "predictable" and "consistent" but it doesn't mean that, does it? So in summary, the term was never hijacked. I am the one who hijacked it! We are never too old to look up a word in the dictionary. :D
–
mrjoltcolaAug 7 '14 at 23:44

It was fine to offer an edit to the answer, but the owner didn't consider it to be an improvement, and since it has their name and face attached to it, they ultimately have the right to decide that, whether it works out for better or for worse. If you then still wanted to add that information, you could/should have done so in a comment, or in a new answer, or in the question.

You only got "such a negative reaction" once you edited that answer twice. Although it was a very grumpy response, I don't see how you could possibly expect a positive reaction to bluntly rolling back someone's edits of their own answer to your version. No good comes from edit warring, so don't do it!

Also, there's no difference between an edit that is well-meaning but wrong, and a troll. So if you make a well-meaning edit that the answerer believes is wrong, you will be treated like a troll as soon as you apply it twice.
–
Steve JessopAug 6 '14 at 13:17

@SteveJessop: Presumably you meant no outwardly distinctive difference? Because trolling and making well-meaning, accidentally wrong edits are polarly opposite to each other.
–
Lightness Races in OrbitAug 7 '14 at 17:56

@LightnessRacesinOrbit: right, I mean that neither SE processes nor a person responding to repeated edits to their answer that they don't agree with, can tell what is truly in the heart of the person making the edits. Certainly I've seen plenty of people who to me appear to have a bee in their bonnet about how things should be, accused of trolling. Then again, I've seen at least one person on SO who at times appears to accuse almost anyone who disagrees with his answers of trolling, so maybe accusation != genuine inability to distinguish...
–
Steve JessopAug 7 '14 at 18:07

The attitude expressed by the answerer is directly anathema to the general method by which SO operates. The moment you provide an answer to SO, it's subject to improvement by the community, which is a direct strength of this site. You still "own" your answer in that it's your name on it, you can remove it or edit it with few restrictions, but provided your original intent is still intact and extra information is provided in a way that maintains the clarity of the original content and relates to using the answer in a clear way, then there should be no objection, as it's demonstrably not superfluous just because you can find it elsewhere.

That said, whether it was just a bad day, or this user legitimately disagrees with my assessment above, another strength of this site is that it brings many different types of people who have different ways in which they communicate and different spheres of knowledge and experience all together under one roof, so to speak. So, once a user has explicitly rejected a modification to their answer, it's time to leave it alone.

This leads to a 3rd strength of SO, the comments system. You can modify the available information to your hearts content by leaving a comment and the user can't do anything. If your comment is explicitly useful to people, then we will get evidence of that: your comment will be upvoted! If it's not, no harm no foul.

So, in summary, neither of you were completely above criticism here, but it appears to have all come out in the wash, as it usually does.

I agree and disagree. I disagree with freely adding content to other answers when you have the option to add our own answers. Secondly, my reputation is linked to my answer. Yours is not. There are multiple outlets for adding or improving a question besides editing a specific answer. Something to keep in mind.
–
mrjoltcolaAug 5 '14 at 20:26

I don't disagree with that, but I made several qualifications with the intention of requiring that the original quality of the answer remains intact. If you want to add factually true information that provides extra information around using my answer, then I don't think "you can find that information elsewhere" is a reason to fear losing rep. Most information is more suited to commentary rather than editing, anyway.
–
JasonAug 5 '14 at 20:34

2

Exactly, and I think it is more widely accepted and well received to provide additional content in comments than in direct edits. Only the OP knows his original intent, so I give him the final editorship.
–
mrjoltcolaAug 5 '14 at 20:43

5

Codenheim makes an excellent point - reputation is linked to the name on the answer, so the content should not be lightly changed. Further, answers may tend to trigger additional "support requests", so if the original poster prefers to confine their answer to the unique and important details and not wade into trivialities, that should be respected.
–
Chris StrattonAug 6 '14 at 0:52

1

I don't think we're really that much in disagreement. The content in the OP skirts the line between "acceptable edit" and "really just a comment" and I can't fault you if you lean towards the latter. Again, my main points: edits happen, don't start an edit war, it all comes out in the wash.
–
JasonAug 6 '14 at 13:28

I agree that edits should not substantively modify the original meaning of an answer. But original extra material should, I think, be encouraged, especially since the donor is giving of their time for no reward at all. While setting up an edit war is to be discouraged, I am disappointed this high-rep user rejected it, and so rudely too.

If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you.

From the same page, reasons to edit a post include:

To add related resources

We can of course debate the precise meaning of the reasons to edit — indeed we should. That said, if the community is in two minds as to whether this kind of edit is too substantial, hopefully everyone who sees this Meta discussion will at least be reminded to "roll back with civility".

I would agree, when the added content is correct and relevant. Neither were the case in this instance. And not to excuse the rudeness, but the answerer was mostly civil (the "DUDE" could be considered rude) until the OP edited the answer twice and accused the answerer of being unhelpful. Some may consider rolling back an author's rollback of your edit to be rude...
–
Joshua UlrichAug 5 '14 at 22:13

1

Thanks @Joshua. You're quite right about the OP's rollback - I acknowledged that in my answer. I'm still of the view that the high-rep user in question was at least curt to start with, and (IMO again) they need a gentle community reminder that their answers are editable. "Please do not edit my answer" and "I did not flag [CW]" may point to a misunderstanding of Stack Overflow's guidelines.
–
halferAug 5 '14 at 22:35

Subsequent thought: even after the rollback, the high-rep user is expected to remain civil. He should have flagged the edit war for a moderator to deal with, and noted this action in a civil comment - and hopefully he will read this to hear that suggestion.
–
halferAug 5 '14 at 22:38

4

"Answers are editable" is not carte blanche. My name is attached to my posts, and a reader is going to start out assuming that i wrote whatever's in them. If you edit them to add stuff i wouldn't have added (say, because i believe it irrelevant or incorrect), you're putting words in my mouth....and i personally get a bit irked about that too. The more accepted option would be to post the extra info as a comment. Then the info's there either way, but it remains clear whose ideas are whose. (And if i agree that the info improves the post, i can still add it and credit you.)
–
cHaoAug 6 '14 at 16:36

@cHao, I don't find myself disagreeing with that. When I wrote this, I was nodding at Bill's view, which is that the edit "probably would have been accepted by just about anybody". There is of course an edit history on answers, though I accept not everyone checks them (and a self-edit following a third-party edit makes it a bit less clear unless the history is specifically consulted). Regarding edit freedom not being carte blanche, I wonder if a clarification to the Help page would be in order?
–
halferAug 6 '14 at 17:24

2

I do think the help section could be clearer on the topic. The only official guidance i've seen (outside of Meta) is the text on the full edit page that <2k editors see, and it could be considered a bit vague. (It says "clarify meaning without changing it" and "always respect the original author". I interpret the combination as "keep the post true to the original author's intent". No doubt some people interpret it differently.)
–
cHaoAug 6 '14 at 19:34

As far as the difference between SO and other sites, I would suggest that the set of people that are very good programmers probably includes a higher ratio of people who are either condescending to people who aren't very good programmers or generally not particularly personable than the set of people who are knowledgeable about other things, as programming can more easily be a solo activity than other things (learning about gardening, for example, is more socially oriented). As such, you might get a bit more rudeness directed at people who are stating obvious things (or, to that person obvious things).

Stack Overflow also had a lot of programmers using it back in the 'day', before it became the de-facto resource for everyone; thus sort of a "get off of my lawn" attitude by some people isn't surprising. Most of our other sites are (much) newer, and/or expect a bit more naive userbase (SuperUser, for example) by default. Only SO (and maybe SF?) really have this disparity between old users who were generally better programmers, and massive new user influx who perhaps aren't as good of programmers (or DBAs, although I suspect there is a higher barrier for entry into DBA-dom than there is for programming or web development).

In neither case is the attitude defensible, but that might explain why it seems to be different.

This has similarities to some discussions about editing old and "outdated" answers (there have been a few active questions here on this topic over the past few weeks).

Although Stack Overflow's claimed goal is to build a repository of programming knowledge, it doesn't really have any good mechanism to do this collectively. The closest thing close to such a mechanism would be the Community Wiki, which has never been really been aced in general (policies towards CW have changed too).

There is a fundamental difference between an author and an editor, especially with the way content is presented on Stack Exchange. Stack Overflow may be a collaboratively edited site, it may even be a collaboratively authored site, as a whole, but individual answers are not designed to be co-authored.

When you write an answer, it is your name (or your handle) that is written in the bottom right corner: "answered X days ago [by] ".

Editing an answer for punctuation, typos, formatting, fixing a link, and so on is fine, because it's just editing. Adding more substantial content generally is not. This is not a co-authorship mechanism.

If you have something to say to an existing post, use comments, that's what they're for. If you really feel something needs to be edited (e.g. pointer for an answer to a different version, or indication that there may be a security issue), make it clear it doesn't come from the initial author: "[Editor's note: ...]".

Assuming authors will roll back edits if they don't like them doesn't really work: it's only acceptable if you assume the author will come back regularly to the site. Many of us are regular users, by not all of us.

Despite what the help center ("To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place, To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages, To add related resources or hyperlinks") and some moderators seem to suggest, putting words in an author's mouth is misleading. It should not be encouraged, not on Stack Overflow, and not on other Stack Exchange sites, considering the way answers are presented. This is not Wikipedia (and let's not pretend that readers will go through the edit history).

(I'll admit being a bit more flexible for editing questions a bit more substantially, but askers are generally around when their questions are clarified, and they generally welcome edits, especially those that improve their English usage, or more practically anything that will increase their chances of getting an answer.)

In this particular case, although the first edit may have been an honest mistake, you shouldn't have done it twice. Rudeness either way is never good. Note that his first comment wasn't rude ("Please do not edit my answer"). It is negative indeed, but unlike what you claim, I wouldn't call that hostile as such. Editing further was pointless: the subsequent edits and comments are bound to be perceived as a bit rude by the other party, and this can only escalate. The author has a right not to be misrepresented, and edit wars are never a good idea.

Edits go though a review system. Doesn't this process legitimate the edit? No matter if it's a 1st edit or a n-th same edit.

I don't think the author has the final word, this is a community and the whole community has the final word. The author has the power to unilaterally remove the answer if he/she wishes (and there are also processes to remove answers by the community).

Politeness and democracy are different concepts, it's better when they go together, but they don't always do.

PS: Maybe there should be an "immutable" option next to the "community wiki" checkbox.

If you have 2000 rep your edits do not have to be reviewed.
–
GSeeAug 6 '14 at 12:02

7

And I believe that no matter your rep, the original author will get notified of the edit, and has the chance for a final say in the matter.
–
LundinAug 6 '14 at 12:54

Yep, you even get notified if an edit request on one of your posts gets declined.
–
KayAug 6 '14 at 20:59

1

@GSee Didn't know that, that's a different story then. 2k rep is too far away for me :P Thanks for teaching, anyway as halfer pointed out in his answer, contributions may happen and are part of the system.
–
CijcoSistemsAug 6 '14 at 21:40